Gay Marriage

[Mavvy]

Hey... if they love each other very much, why not let them be together, ne?
They are not corrupting society in any way. Its just all in peoples heads when they see something odd.
Politics + Religion = Bad Combination

[Bionic808]

i say Yes , just because of equal rights for all people ... i say that as a homosexual.

[Ichigo_the_demon_slayer]

okay gay people are still people! what is the government afraid of? did some witch say a gay person will kill you in seven days or some BS like that! These people we are talking about have feelings too so why not support them! i mean its not fair to say, "oh im sorry that your gay but you cant get married." that is the same as saying, "oh your white you should die." or replace that white with whatever but whatever way you put it it is still unfair to the gays. i have several gay friends but im straight so why cant we all just get along i am sick and tired of people being picked on and bullied like i have been for 16 years i mean it used to be everywhere i turned just because i wore glasses! wtf that aint right! and its the same thing the U.S. government is doing to Gay people and im effin sick of it so just let them get married i mean they are lettin second cousins get married in the south so that couls be just as illegal! >=(

[Sorian]

Church and State should always be seperated.

What people do behind locked doors isn't my business so just let them get married and be on their way.

[Sarteck]

Church and State should always be seperated.
What people do behind locked doors isn't my business so just let them get married and be on their way.
BUt wouldn't that require a re-write of a lot of laws (particularly taxes) having to do with marraige (which is, all things told, a religious ceremony integrated into the very State)?

[I'm nuetral on the issue, myself.]

[akin_t]

okay gay people are still people! what is the government afraid of? did some witch say a gay person will kill you in seven days or some BS like that! These people we are talking about have feelings too so why not support them! i mean its not fair to say, "oh im sorry that your gay but you cant get married." that is the same as saying, "oh your white you should die." or replace that white with whatever but whatever way you put it it is still unfair to the gays. i have several gay friends but im straight so why cant we all just get along i am sick and tired of people being picked on and bullied like i have been for 16 years i mean it used to be everywhere i turned just because i wore glasses! wtf that aint right! and its the same thing the U.S. government is doing to Gay people and im effin sick of it so just let them get married i mean they are lettin second cousins get married in the south so that couls be just as illegal! >=(


Good intentions ... terrible argument.

Well you see, the reason why it isn't legal yet is that public opinion is not suppotive of it. Majority of Americans (and people all over the world) are still very skeptic about the topic, so they simply just have a negative attitude towards gay marriage.

Public opinion is a very powerful thing, it dictates what laws we have in a country. Well in countries with free speech anyway.

When the majority favors gay marriage, and those who oppose it are now in the minority, then gay marriage will definitely become legal. However, we still have a very long way to go before that happens.

[UraharaTenchou]

When the majority favors gay marriage, and those who oppose it are now in the minority, then gay marriage will definitely become legal. However, we still have a very long way to go before that happens.
yes..i will be the minority if that happens.. so i hope, it won't happen...

[akin_t]

yes..i will be the minority if that happens.. so i hope, it won't happen...

As will I, hopefully that won't be in my time ... the thought of it is repulsive to me but that's all I'm saying on the issue, I've said alot already.

[Delta]

Alright, i'm bringing this thread back from the dead cuz someone made a similar one (http://forums.bleachportal.net/showthread.php?t=15506) that got closed, I'm still waiting for someone to give me a good reason against gay marriage.

[izza]

I don't see anything wrong wth gay marriage. I'm pretty open-minded in this category.
It's completely fine but I think that the reason the government is a bit hesitant is because of conversy that could arise from the church.

[Bi Ryu]

how to shoot someone down that opposes gay mairrage:

ask them why they oppose it, without telling you any reasons based on their religious beliefs.

and as for the church, they are always gonna complain, its in human nature to complain first and think later (at least for the general public)

besides, something like this shouldn't be such a huge concern, the problem lies in the fact that people have a more difficult time accepting those that are not like them.

[Sarteck]

how to shoot someone down that opposes gay mairrage:
ask them why they oppose it, without telling you any reasons based on their religious beliefs.

and as for the church, they are always gonna complain, its in human nature to complain first and think later (at least for the general public)

besides, something like this shouldn't be such a huge concern, the problem lies in the fact that people have a more difficult time accepting those that are not like them.What about those that are not religious that oppose gay marriage? Heh. Personally, I don't know why gay people would want to be together under a RELIGIOUS UNION from a religion that doesn't accept them. As for a social union of gay people, I find nothing wrong with that.

Marriage is itself a religious thing. If there is a religion that accepts gay marriage, then I say by all means, allow them to be married under that religion. If not, what would be wrong with a social union?

[Delta]

What about those that are not religious that oppose gay marriage? Heh. Personally, I don't know why gay people would want to be together under a RELIGIOUS UNION from a religion that doesn't accept them. As for a social union of gay people, I find nothing wrong with that.

Marriage is itself a religious thing. If there is a religion that accepts gay marriage, then I say by all means, allow them to be married under that religion. If not, what would be wrong with a social union?

Marriage started as a religious thing, but now its a legal thing too. What would you think if they tried calling marriage between 2 people of different races "civil unions" instead of "marriage"? You'd probly think its messed up cuz your sending the message that marriage--->good civil union---->bad .

[Sarteck]

Marriage started as a religious thing, but now its a legal thing too. What would you think if they tried calling marriage between 2 people of different races "civil unions" instead of "marriage"? You'd probly think its messed up cuz your sending the message that marriage--->good civil union---->bad .
And what if the only difference was...the name? ~GASP!~

Personally, I think that marriage itself is messed up. But that's another debate altogether... Would I think that "civil union" was bad? Jeez, you don't think much of my intelligence by stating that I would, heh. Well, anyways, you're wrong. :3

[Delta]

And what if the only difference was...the name? ~GASP!~

Personally, I think that marriage itself is messed up. But that's another debate altogether... Would I think that "civil union" was bad? Jeez, you don't think much of my intelligence by stating that I would, heh. Well, anyways, you're wrong. :3

You dont see at all how calling marriage something different for gay couples is insulting?

[Sarteck]

You dont see at all how calling marriage something different for gay couples is insulting?
You don't see at all that marriage is a religious thing, and that gays wanting to get married under a religion that doesn't welcome them is insulting to that religion? It's not that hard for me to see... and I'm not even a religious person.

[Fect]

If we're in the context of words, the very idea of creating a new group and assimilation of identities into that group just by using the context of a new description is wrong.

There are 2 kinds of people: The "mainstream" and the "other." The "Other" consists of Queers, Bisexuals, and generally anyone who we claim does not fit into our society. It's that creation of a dicotomy which causes all discrimination today.

Despite the fact it is not as simple as I make it seem, the very effort to lump together identities is irrational and immoral. It is irrational because you will always have two sides of the spectrum, where neither group wants to join in with the larger moderate. It is immoral because the fact you entrench the dictomies is what is causing violence now.

So, what should we do?

We should give people no dicotomy, and rather destroy institutions that uphold those values of "main" and "other." Until we do that, violence will never end, as there will always be some inhuman "other" that needs to be harmed or assimilated into society. Until we rid ourselves of the misconceptions that we can have "groups," we will fail to prevent any destruction.

[Sarteck]

If we're in the context of words, the very idea of creating a new group and assimilation of identities into that group just by using the context of a new description is wrong.

There are 2 kinds of people: The "mainstream" and the "other." The "Other" consists of Queers, Bisexuals, and generally anyone who we claim does not fit into our society. It's that creation of a dicotomy which causes all discrimination today.

Despite the fact it is not as simple as I make it seem, the very effort to lump together identities is irrational and immoral. It is irrational because you will always have two sides of the spectrum, where neither group wants to join in with the larger moderate. It is immoral because the fact you entrench the dictomies is what is causing violence now.

So, what should we do?

We should give people no dicotomy, and rather destroy institutions that uphold those values of "main" and "other." Until we do that, violence will never end, as there will always be some inhuman "other" that needs to be harmed or assimilated into society. Until we rid ourselves of the misconceptions that we can have "groups," we will fail to prevent any destruction.
And in doing so, destroy our sense of individuality, what makes us who we are. I don't really hold with that arguement, though it was argued in an ethics class (which I wasn't exactly supposed to be attending, but I did anyway, irregularly) by the professor herself.

Is it immoral to destroy those institutions which make us who we are? I think so, even if those institutions can lead to other issues that require attention. Should we make everyone understand a point of view they really don't want to understand? No, I don't think that's "right."

I am labelled daily, as I am sure all of you are who are reading this, as one thing or another. It's a part of who I am, of what makes up "Sarteck."

[Delta]

And in doing so, destroy our sense of individuality, what makes us who we are. I don't really hold with that arguement, though it was argued in an ethics class (which I wasn't exactly supposed to be attending, but I did anyway, irregularly) by the professor herself.

Is it immoral to destroy those institutions which make us who we are? I think so, even if those institutions can lead to other issues that require attention. Should we make everyone understand a point of view they really don't want to understand? No, I don't think that's "right."

I am labelled daily, as I am sure all of you are who are reading this, as one thing or another. It's a part of who I am, of what makes up "Sarteck."

How does calling a civil union a marriage "destroy our sense of individuality"? You dont have to force everyone to understand other peoples point of view, but when everyone else treats them different from themselves you send the message that its ok to discriminate against them, which leads to problems.

[Cloud_89]

Standing on Gay marriges They can do what they want. But on a side note You guys do know it's not all about being married. Like there not doing it just so they can say hey were married they want it for all the benefits of being married. For example if a persons partner is mortaly hurt and is taken to the hospital the other partner could not see them unless they were related (Married)(there are of course other resons but this is just one). (sorry about typos that this may have)

[OmNiScIeNt-NaReTrEsS]

I'm not against Gay marriage.
I thaink that if two people love each other, they should be able to marry O.o ! Two men, two women or a man and a woman, it's all the same. The only difference is that they can't have children together, unfortunatly O_o.
But I really can't understand people who are shoked by it.

[~black butterfly~]

im not against it too...although in my religion, its not allowed, i'm more open minded about it...if they really love each other then why not.....

[Random Havoc]

According to the people in the church itself 9im talking about the priests) 50% of them are for and against gay marriages. On one side, the people that are against it are simply trying to uphold and stick as closely to the teachings to the bible as they can. I can't really blame them for trying to do so. The other simply believe that what is important is the fact that they still have faith in god and that is all that really matters. It's been proven that a person being homosexual is so from birth (i just learnt this, is this discovery new???). That's a descent ammount of population and since it's been this way for centuries if not milleniums, being gay just can't be wrong. It can't be a "disease", can't be genetic abnormality. 10% of the population is gay, and 10% of the population like manfaye. They both can't be wrong in doing so. It's time that they are accepted by society for being something NORMAL.

As for marriages, don't get me started. It used to be a religious thing, now it's just about legal rights. Note that now a lot of people change the "Till death do us part" vow to "Till the CIVIL UNION lasts."

I kid you not people.

[Deathscyth Hell]

"If you don't like gay mariges, don't get one".

Best quote to say my view on this topic. I think gay mariges should be legal. If 2 people love each other, regardless of their gender, isn't is human rights to let them live their life how they want? Why stop them getting married? If it doesn't effect our lives then we shouldn't complain.

[Sarteck]

How does calling a civil union a marriage "destroy our sense of individuality"? You dont have to force everyone to understand other peoples point of view, but when everyone else treats them different from themselves you send the message that its ok to discriminate against them, which leads to problems.
Er, you're quoting one arguement in response to an entirely different one, there. Heh. That response was to Fect's point of view, not our arguement. ;) My reply to yours was a bit above that.

[Delta]

Since I missed this before:

You don't see at all that marriage is a religious thing, and that gays wanting to get married under a religion that doesn't welcome them is insulting to that religion? It's not that hard for me to see... and I'm not even a religious person.

I know what you're trying to say, but marriage is more then a religious thing now, there are many legal and monetary (tax breaks ect.) advantages to marriage. I also doubt anyone could "force" a priest to marry people, the couple would find a priest that was willing to marry them.

[Zangetsus_Girl]

As a mom with a girlfriend, I have to say this. My dearest and I would love to get married when the time comes, but I have to say this. While gays should not be crying for more rights than heterosexual couple just because of their orientation, they should be awarded at least the same rights that straight couples have.

Straight couples shouldn't have more or less rights just because of their orientation, and gay couples shouldn't be considered special just because they're homosexual! A couple is a couple, regardless of who is in the relationship.

That being said, everyone should have equal rights or did we forget The Declaration of Independence and the beginning of the Contstitution? Amendments? We don't need one. We just need someone up at the top to remember that we (lesbians, gays, bisexuals) are people too.

[Bi Ryu]

the belief(s) one group should not surpass the belief(s) of all groups

No matter what your orientation is, the following things hold true,

when you are injured, it hurts
your blood is red
your brain has a right and a left hemisphere
the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the same amount of difference between one person and another, in terms of relevance. In other words, this is being blown WAY out of proportion.

For the record, I am straight. However, I have many friends who are gay, and personally, I see no real reason to single them out (or any other group, mind you) simply because they are diffrent. This is most possibly because I define "Race" from a biological standpoint (i.e. Race = The human race).

[JeremyJay22]

I personally support gay marriage. I mean if two people of the same sex want to be married why not let them? Just let them live their own life in their own way.

[SolBeowulf19]

When it comes to the religious aspect of Gay Marriage, I'm a bit....in the middle. However, I support gay marriage more for the fact that if a man and a woman who hate each other's guts have a right to marry, then why shouldn't a man and a man or woman and a woman who love each other have the same right. If not, then that seems pretty backwards.

[adorkable]

Why not? Homosexual people are just like everyone else. Do they have the right yet? No. It's just like child rights or any sort of rights for that matter. But does our society want to see two people of the same sex together? No. But seriously, who cares? They aren't interfering in your life so you don't interfere in theirs. Gay marriage should be allowed. I'm glad to see that the laws of some countries are changing.

(This is directed at adopting)

Personally I think of a gay couple wants to adopt a child, let them. Kids are going to have to face a lot of difficulties in life and what doesn't kill them will only make them stronger. If people tease them for having gay parents than I think its about time people started standing up to school yard bullies. People get taunted and discriminated against in school for everythig from the colour of their skin, to the clothes they wear. When kids are in school teachers need to influence their students more on life because they can more often than not tell students what their parents won't. Well, that is just my opinion.

[OmNiScIeNt-NaReTrEsS]

The only thing is thats I'm not really agree to a gay couple to have a kid. Depends.
If this is, for exemple, two women. I think they can adopt a child IF they have some friends who are men, and who come sometimes. Why ? Because if a child was only with one kind of people (just men or just women), He'll be very shy in front of person of the oposite sex from his parents. So it can be difficult then. But if one of the relationship of a couple of two men is a woman, there's no problem.
(Sorry, I think that my sentences are not really easy to understand, but...)

[Chouji]

I could care less is people were gay but marriage is between a man and women it is religously wrong if you have a faith. I just think if you wanna be gay be gay but you dont need to get married. Thus my point is its not the fact that i hate gays it that gay marriage is just wrong.

[OmNiScIeNt-NaReTrEsS]

Marriage is sometimes religious, but... My parents think that God doesn't exist, and they're married (and I was 3 years old XD). So I don't think that religion is REALLY important for marry.
I think a wedding is good for everybody, because you can pay taxes together, you can have reductions (The family card for transport, fo exemple... You pay only 50%, so it's good)... And it's so cute to get married ! All your family is here ^_^ ! I think marriage is something great, and I don't know why gay people can't marry together o_o".

[Kurai-chan]

for me, gay marriage should be allowed because they are couples too! the only difference between them and others is that they are of the same sexes! but when we are speaking about their love and commitment for each other, i think they do not differ that much. just because their relationship isn't normal in the eyes of some/most people doesn't mean that we can't give them their rights to be married. as long as they do not affect us, then let them do whatever they want to do with their own lives.

[Sarteck]

Ugh... The institution of marriage was created in ancient times to solve three problems: the perpetuation of the species, rules governing property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. It became entwined with religion over the ages, and the very word "marriage" itself is pretty much now a religious word.

Those of you who are all for gay marriage, why do you want it? You want to see two guys get married in a chapel? You want to see some lesbians kiss in a cathedral? You want to just say that religions have no power whatsoever over their own tenets anymore?

MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS THING. Yes, it is, get over it. You want a social union, go for it. You want to create your own religion that accepts gay marriages, good for you. Until then, why should gay people even want to be married? Why would they want a union under a religion that doesn't acknowledge them?

[Chouji]

I totally agree with sarteck marriage is religous and the heads of those religion choose their rules to a certain extent. There for if you have a problem with it right a letter to the pope and shut up.

[Delta]

Ugh... The institution of marriage was created in ancient times to solve three problems: the perpetuation of the species, rules governing property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. It became entwined with religion over the ages, and the very word "marriage" itself is pretty much now a religious word.

So basicly except for the perpetuation of the species part you're saying marriage started out as a political thing. Considering how entwined religion and politics used to be, I'm not surprised.

Those of you who are all for gay marriage, why do you want it? You want to see two guys get married in a chapel? You want to see some lesbians kiss in a cathedral? You want to just say that religions have no power whatsoever over their own tenets anymore?

And who decides those tenets? The guy in charge of whatever religion it is? Alot of religions dont have a centralized power structure, and most of them are so huge and varied that you will find people who dont see a problem marrying gay couples, how are their "tenets" and less then someone else's "tenets"?

[OmNiScIeNt-NaReTrEsS]

You said that wedding was something religous... Maybe. Here it's not really true, but maybe this is true in other parts of the world O.o". But if this gay couple is very catholic, what do they have to do if they can't mary O_o ?! Then they won't be able to adopt a child ('cause if I renember you can't have a kid without being married when you think that god exists) o_o"...

[dragoneyes001]

Ugh... The institution of marriage was created in ancient times to solve three problems: the perpetuation of the species, rules governing property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. It became entwined with religion over the ages, and the very word "marriage" itself is pretty much now a religious word.

Those of you who are all for gay marriage, why do you want it? You want to see two guys get married in a chapel? You want to see some lesbians kiss in a cathedral? You want to just say that religions have no power whatsoever over their own tenets anymore?

MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS THING. Yes, it is, get over it. You want a social union, go for it. You want to create your own religion that accepts gay marriages, good for you. Until then, why should gay people even want to be married? Why would they want a union under a religion that doesn't acknowledge them?

one question Sartek:

when that woman in England married a porpoise has it changed your life in any way?

its the same for any marriages they are for the couples involved they don't change the lives of the unrelated so its kind of dumb to get all bent out of shape over someone else's personal business.

[Hisaki]

Ugh... The institution of marriage was created in ancient times to solve three problems: the perpetuation of the species, rules governing property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. It became entwined with religion over the ages, and the very word "marriage" itself is pretty much now a religious word.

Those of you who are all for gay marriage, why do you want it? You want to see two guys get married in a chapel? You want to see some lesbians kiss in a cathedral? You want to just say that religions have no power whatsoever over their own tenets anymore?

MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS THING. Yes, it is, get over it. You want a social union, go for it. You want to create your own religion that accepts gay marriages, good for you. Until then, why should gay people even want to be married? Why would they want a union under a religion that doesn't acknowledge them?


Well. A woman past menopause can marry. A marriage between one or two sterile persons is allowed. And two people can marry and never have children. Ensuring the procreation of children is apparently not the function of a modern-day marriage.

Property rights are protected under marriage. I'll touch on that later.

Protection of bloodlines is all but moot here in America. Being a descendent of a certain person doesn't mean much over here. Which is ironic, because every other modern nation has allowed same-sex marriage, and some of them run on a iconic monarchy.

Why do I want to see same-sex marriage happen? I don't, because I realize that would set off an insane reaction from unaccepting religions if it were imposed upon them. There's two components of marriage, and most people don't understand that. One is the walking-down-the-aisle part. That's what almost immediately springs to mind when you think of marriage. The second is when the religious official who oversees the marriage goes into a back room and fills out necessary legal documents to give the marriage a legal backing, and thus, the rights associated with a civil union. No less than 1,138 rights are gained from this (as stated by the United States General Accounting Office).

So, what is it I want? I want an alternate venue for same-sex couples to receive the rights that are normally granted through marriage. Heterosexual couples can go to a local government office and get a marriage license, but homosexual couples can't in almost every state in the U.S. Why? Aren't we the nation of "freedom and equality"? Shouldn't we be giving everyone the equality we so proudly boast of? Why is it, then, that we block off equality from certain people?

Also, some religions are neutral or tolerant in regards to homosexual marriages. However, because of the scope of the bans on same-sex marriage and civil unions, those religions effectively have to operate under the laws of Christianity. Freedom of worship should allow them to practice their beliefs as they wish, but because of a misconstrued law, their rights are limited.

Bush tried to pass an amendment last month that would ban same-sex marriage and civil unions nation-wide. However, his ban would have further consequences. Marriages in which one or both members are transsexual would be dissolved. Beyond that, one in one hundred newborn infants have a gender-based abnormality of some sort at birth. Through surgery, this is corrected. However, marriages between one or two people that had such an abnormality would also be dissolved. This is due to the poor wording of the amendment that Bush tried to pass. He has stated that he will continue trying to pass the bill until his term in office ends. In turn, he will continue trying to tear away marriages that have been established and bar rights from a subset of people.

However, why is it that people cannot simply learn to have tolerance? If you don't like the idea of two people of the same gender walking down the aisle together, fine. Your church probably doesn't like the idea either, so it's safe to assume such a thing will never happen at your church. But just because you don't like such a thing, don't bar everyone else from having that choice if they want it. If they can't be married at your church, or given their rights in your state, then let them have the ability to go somewhere and have a marriage, and get those rights. As long as you're not a witness to people having the freedom that they should have as promised by America, it shouldn't bother you so much.

[Sarteck]

And who decides those tenets? The guy in charge of whatever religion it is? Alot of religions dont have a centralized power structure, and most of them are so huge and varied that you will find people who dont see a problem marrying gay couples, how are their "tenets" and less then someone else's "tenets"?Who said anything about one religion's tenets being less than another religion's?

You said that wedding was something religous... Maybe. Here it's not really true, but maybe this is true in other parts of the world O.o". But if this gay couple is very catholic, what do they have to do if they can't mary O_o ?! Then they won't be able to adopt a child ('cause if I renember you can't have a kid without being married when you think that god exists) o_o"...If this gay couple exists, then they're obviously not very Catholic. ;)

one question Sartek:

when that woman in England married a porpoise has it changed your life in any way?Answer: WTF are you talking about, DE? Heh.







Now, to all of you:

Marriage is a religious institution. Again I'll say it. If you don't believe me, go to one of the millions of polls conducted about it (or better yet, look at several hundred, heh).

As such, I really think that marriage itself is a bad thing to mix up with laws of property and such--i.e., I think that, since marriage is religious, it should be seperate from government (the law).

The problem all gays wanting "gay marriages" legalized are that they are trying to use that moniker--"marriage." Yeah, it's just a word, but it's still a word strongly associated with religion.

I think, instead, that any kind of union (be it same sex or not) should be a "civil union," and that should be that. If someone is religious, they can slap on whatever label they want to have.

Let me ask any of you people reading this thread... Are you gay? If so, do you want to marry your partner? If so, would you call him/her your wife or your husband? What would they call you? Kind of screwed up, isn't it? But "Wife" and "Husband" are the terms used in marriage.



[I know this response is a bit haphazard, but I've one hell of a headache tonight, heh.]

[dragoneyes001]

Who said anything about one religion's tenets being less than another religion's?
If this gay couple exists, then they're obviously not very Catholic. ;)
Answer: WTF are you talking about, DE? Heh.
Now, to all of you:
Marriage is a religious institution. Again I'll say it. If you don't believe me, go to one of the millions of polls conducted about it (or better yet, look at several hundred, heh).
As such, I really think that marriage itself is a bad thing to mix up with laws of property and such--i.e., I think that, since marriage is religious, it should be seperate from government (the law).
The problem all gays wanting "gay marriages" legalized are that they are trying to use that moniker--"marriage." Yeah, it's just a word, but it's still a word strongly associated with religion.
I think, instead, that any kind of union (be it same sex or not) should be a "civil union," and that should be that. If someone is religious, they can slap on whatever label they want to have.
Let me ask any of you people reading this thread... Are you gay? If so, do you want to marry your partner? If so, would you call him/her your wife or your husband? What would they call you? Kind of screwed up, isn't it? But "Wife" and "Husband" are the terms used in marriage.
[I know this response is a bit haphazard, but I've one hell of a headache tonight, heh.]

the thing your getting wrong is thinking because some percentage of the church being against gay marriage means all the clergy is.

there are many priests willing to do the ceremonies and a number of churches who don't have any problem with it. just because your against it does not make your view universal.

you ask WTF? about what i asked well that's pretty stupid of you to ask. it was a simple question even a ten year old could have answered it. its simply a yes or no answer really did the marriage of some woman to a mammal have any effect on your life? I'll answer for you NO it didn't neither would the marriage of two women would or two guys since both have NO BEARING on your life whatsoever you are not a priest being asked to marry them so it has no chance of directly affecting you.

the only thing you can object to with any merit is that your offended by the thought of people you don't respect getting rights to be recognised legally as couples.

[Delta]

Who said anything about one religion's tenets being less than another religion's?

Some religions, or sects of religions, or people within a certain religion, dont see any problem w/ same-sex marriages, and when you prevent people from being married under one of those religions, you're putting one religions "tenets" over another's.

If this gay couple exists, then they're obviously not very Catholic.

Dude, i've been called a "bad catholic" because I give blood, and the person that called me that said something about it goes against god's order to "treat your body like a temple" or some crap like that. We're both "Catholic", but we disagree on what it mean to be "Catholic". I may not agree with everything the pope says, but I still consider myself Catholic.

Marriage is a religious institution. Again I'll say it. If you don't believe me, go to one of the millions of polls conducted about it (or better yet, look at several hundred, heh).

As such, I really think that marriage itself is a bad thing to mix up with laws of property and such--i.e., I think that, since marriage is religious, it should be seperate from government (the law).

Yeah, but like it or not marriage is mixed up with the law, and when we're told everyone will get equal treatment under the law, this applies.

The problem all gays wanting "gay marriages" legalized are that they are trying to use that moniker--"marriage." Yeah, it's just a word, but it's still a word strongly associated with religion.

But cant marriages also be performed by a captain or something, not a priest.... i'll have to look that up....

Let me ask any of you people reading this thread... Are you gay? If so, do you want to marry your partner? If so, would you call him/her your wife or your husband? What would they call you? Kind of screwed up, isn't it? But "Wife" and "Husband" are the terms used in marriage.

Nope, i'm not gay, but I still dont see why people care if 2 guys or 2 chicks get married, and quite frankly, I dont know or care what they call each other. I also think this is a dumb argument to have while American troops are being put in danger because of an unjustifyable war, and I think it's an argument designed to distract people of that fact and to get votes because of people blowing a little issue like this out of proportion.

Edit: I remembered hearing something about a ship's captain being able to marry people, so I looked it up and found this (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_329.html) article. Basicly it says that no state has come outright and told capaians that they can marry people, but in some situations where captains have done this it was accepted as a valid marriage, at least thats what I took out of it.

[Sarteck]

the thing your getting wrong is thinking because some percentage of the church being against gay marriage means all the clergy is.
there are many priests willing to do the ceremonies and a number of churches who don't have any problem with it. just because your against it does not make your view universal.

you ask WTF? about what i asked well that's pretty stupid of you to ask. it was a simple question even a ten year old could have answered it. its simply a yes or no answer really did the marriage of some woman to a mammal have any effect on your life? I'll answer for you NO it didn't neither would the marriage of two women would or two guys since both have NO BEARING on your life whatsoever you are not a priest being asked to marry them so it has no chance of directly affecting you.

the only thing you can object to with any merit is that your offended by the thought of people you don't respect getting rights to be recognised legally as couples.
By "the church," I assume you are talking about the Christian religion. I therefore challange you to provide ONE example of an ORDAINED clergyman of the Catholic church willing to perform same-sex marriages. Also, I have nothing against same-sex couples. I have something against marriage (same-sex or otherwise) being one with the law. [This all in response to your first paragraph.]

As for your question about the marriage of someone to an animal... Again, I'll ask, WTF are you on about? "Oh, that's stupid of you, Sarteck, to ask WTF I am talking about if you don't understand WTF I am talking about." O----kay. Yeah.

As for your third paragraph... Did you get dropped as a child many times? Have you read any of my previous posts in this thread where I said that such a thing does NOT offend me? That I have no more problem with gay couples than I do straight couples? Ah, you haven't read them? Well, then it might do you some good not to assume that I'm simply "offended" by "people I don't respect" getting rights to be legally recognized as couples."



For the record, by the way, my girlfriend and I are not legally recognized as a couple. Just how much do you think that upsets me?





Nope, i'm not gay, but I still dont see why people care if 2 guys or 2 chicks get married, and quite frankly, I dont know or care what they call each other. I also think this is a dumb argument to have while American troops are being put in danger because of an unjustifyable war, and I think it's an argument designed to distract people of that fact and to get votes because of people blowing a little issue like this out of proportion.
Er, well, I'm fairly sure that Club Bleach isn't trying to distract people from the war... I have no idea where THAT all came from. O.o

[Delta]

Er, well, I'm fairly sure that Club Bleach isn't trying to distract people from the war... I have no idea where THAT all came from. O.o

You misunderstand me, the reason this is a big issue right now is because of the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, thats what I was talking about.

[hitsugaya131]

Hmmm.
I guess it would depend on the perspective
From a Christian biblical text I would say that gay/lesbian marriage is a no
but from a sense in freedom rights…I would say yes, cuz people can live their lives as they wish….i believe we shouldn’t tell people who they should or should not marry or love…

[SilverD]

I've got lots of gay and lesbian friends so I totally think that if they're really committed, they have every right to show that commitment to the world.

[Hisaki]

As such, I really think that marriage itself is a bad thing to mix up with laws of property and such--i.e., I think that, since marriage is religious, it should be seperate from government (the law).
The problem all gays wanting "gay marriages" legalized are that they are trying to use that moniker--"marriage." Yeah, it's just a word, but it's still a word strongly associated with religion.
I think, instead, that any kind of union (be it same sex or not) should be a "civil union," and that should be that. If someone is religious, they can slap on whatever label they want to have.
Let me ask any of you people reading this thread... Are you gay? If so, do you want to marry your partner? If so, would you call him/her your wife or your husband? What would they call you? Kind of screwed up, isn't it? But "Wife" and "Husband" are the terms used in marriage.
[I know this response is a bit haphazard, but I've one hell of a headache tonight, heh.]

Actually, the majority of homosexuals are seeking civil unions, and only a small group want fully-equal marriages. The government is the group throwing around the term "marriage" to cover for both civil unions and legal marriages, as is evidenced by many cases against states since the 2004 vote on whether same-sex "marriage" should be allowed. In my state, for example, we're having another vote to see if civil unions should be allowed, because our state was one of many that asked if same-sex "marriages" should be allowed. This made the public vote on both the religious and legal aspects at the same time, which is forbidden by state law. Other states have had similar cases brought against them, and they have voted again on the matter, though the residents of the state voted against civil unions as well.

I do agree, however, that marriage should be split into its religious and legal parts. If you want a religious marriage, go ahead. If you just want to sign the papers and get your rights, you can do that too. But don't use a religious ceremony to grant rights. The institution of marriage is the one aspect of American government where church and state are strongly tied together, not separated as they should be.

On a side note, the Supreme Court actually passed a ruling in 2003 that stated that banning civil unions between two people of the same sex is unconstitutional, as it keeps them from having their rights. Sadly, the Supreme Court can't enforce their own decisions, so Congress and state legislatures have simply ignored the ruling without any ill effects.

[Sarteck]

You misunderstand me, the reason this is a big issue right now is because of the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, thats what I was talking about.Come on, now... Do you really think that the United States (or any government for that matter) should concentrate on only ONE issue at a time? Do you know how slow our beaureucratic(sp?) process already goes? It's a big issue with the government right now because it's a big issue with the people--it's not because the governemnt is trying to distract us from anything.


Actually, the majority of homosexuals are seeking civil unions, and only a small group want fully-equal marriages. The government is the group throwing around the term "marriage" to cover for both civil unions and legal marriages, as is evidenced by many cases against states since the 2004 vote on whether same-sex "marriage" should be allowed. In my state, for example, we're having another vote to see if civil unions should be allowed, because our state was one of many that asked if same-sex "marriages" should be allowed. This made the public vote on both the religious and legal aspects at the same time, which is forbidden by state law. Other states have had similar cases brought against them, and they have voted again on the matter, though the residents of the state voted against civil unions as well.

I do agree, however, that marriage should be split into its religious and legal parts. If you want a religious marriage, go ahead. If you just want to sign the papers and get your rights, you can do that too. But don't use a religious ceremony to grant rights. The institution of marriage is the one aspect of American government where church and state are strongly tied together, not separated as they should be.

On a side note, the Supreme Court actually passed a ruling in 2003 that stated that banning civil unions between two people of the same sex is unconstitutional, as it keeps them from having their rights. Sadly, the Supreme Court can't enforce their own decisions, so Congress and state legislatures have simply ignored the ruling without any ill effects.
I don't know about the majority of gays going for civil unions thing, and I think that (short of a poll on scale of the U.S. Census) it would be impossible to prove, heh.

In most marriages (or even in trials, etc.), you often hear the words "by the powers vested in me by God" (and sometimes "and the State of So-And-So"). This is one of the reasons that marriages (as a religious institution) are part of the government--we have NOT seperated Church and State. If we would do that, so many new possibilities would open up.

I have a few questions on the topic of civil unions, though... What if people wanted civil uinions between more than two people? Why could that not be allowed? And if it could, then what would be the limit? Four? Ten? Fifty? No limit? What would be the age limit on civil unions? Would civil unions in this country be valid in other countries and vice versa?



[Oi, this much trouble GETTING Civil Unions, and what happens when someone wants a divorce? "Oi! You can't call it a 'divorce!'" ~LoL~]

[Delta]

Come on, now... Do you really think that the United States (or any government for that matter) should concentrate on only ONE issue at a time? Do you know how slow our beaureucratic(sp?) process already goes? It's a big issue with the government right now because it's a big issue with the people--it's not because the governemnt is trying to distract us from anything.


No I dont think we should focus on more then 1 issue at a time, but there are way more important issues to be trying to pass laws about, or change, or help; unemployment, coporate corruption, the economy in general, alternative fuel souces, net nuetrality, immigration, you know, things that accually effect peoples lives. and its a big issue w/ the people because the government proposed a contitutional ban against gay marriage, the government, as we would say in 2nd grade, "started it".

[Hisaki]

I don't know about the majority of gays going for civil unions thing, and I think that (short of a poll on scale of the U.S. Census) it would be impossible to prove, heh.
In most marriages (or even in trials, etc.), you often hear the words "by the powers vested in me by God" (and sometimes "and the State of So-And-So"). This is one of the reasons that marriages (as a religious institution) are part of the government--we have NOT seperated Church and State. If we would do that, so many new possibilities would open up.
I have a few questions on the topic of civil unions, though... What if people wanted civil uinions between more than two people? Why could that not be allowed? And if it could, then what would be the limit? Four? Ten? Fifty? No limit? What would be the age limit on civil unions? Would civil unions in this country be valid in other countries and vice versa?
[Oi, this much trouble GETTING Civil Unions, and what happens when someone wants a divorce? "Oi! You can't call it a 'divorce!'" ~LoL~]

Actually... "Although only about 4 in 10 Americans think gay and lesbian people should be allowed to marry, there is larger support for permitting civil unions. All in all, over half of Americans support some type of legal recognition for same-sex couples who wish to make a long-term commitment." A study by the Associated Press garnered these results in 2004, and the general mindset hasn't changed noticeably since then. The survey was done within appropriate statistical boundaries and is fairly reliable.

As for the number and age of people involved in civil unions, there are many restrictions in place. Polygamy is still forbidden, as is pedophilia. Hence, marriage licenses and the accompanying civil union that goes with them are not allowed in such circumstances. Laws are already in place to keep such unions from being legal, though they can understandably be overturned with enough backing from the populace and the federal government, though it is highly unlikely.

Civil unions from other countries are already valid in countries that recognize them; that is, you can get a union in Britain and it will be recognized if you travel to Germany. Likewise, you can get a union in Britain and it won't be recognized in about 40 of the states here, and if your partner isn't already a citizen, Immigration has the right to bar your partner from entering the country with you. It happened to a friend of mine and his partner a few years back. They just decided to settle down in his partner's country.

Dissolution of civil unions has already been done in the U.S. as well. I believe the proper term would simply be "annulment", and is done by filling out a few forms at the same local government office that issues civil unions. It is interesting to note that, as of 2005, 7,582 civil unions had been granted in Vermont, and only 78 had been dissolved, which is roughly a 1% "divorce" rate. The sample size is more than enough to be considered applicable to civil unions in the U.S. in general, and as such, a 1-5% "divorce" rate would be a good approximation. Compared to a rough divorce rate of 31% for heterosexual couples, as reported by the New York Times, it makes you wonder how much those vows at the altar really mean. Although the introduction of civil unions is still relatively new and rather limited in availability, the number of same-sex civil unions that have dissolved is not increasing at a very fast rate.

[dragoneyes001]

By "the church," I assume you are talking about the Christian religion. I therefore challange you to provide ONE example of an ORDAINED clergyman of the Catholic church willing to perform same-sex marriages. Also, I have nothing against same-sex couples. I have something against marriage (same-sex or otherwise) being one with the law. [This all in response to your first paragraph.]
As for your question about the marriage of someone to an animal... Again, I'll ask, WTF are you on about? "Oh, that's stupid of you, Sarteck, to ask WTF I am talking about if you don't understand WTF I am talking about." O----kay. Yeah.
As for your third paragraph... Did you get dropped as a child many times? Have you read any of my previous posts in this thread where I said that such a thing does NOT offend me? That I have no more problem with gay couples than I do straight couples? Ah, you haven't read them? Well, then it might do you some good not to assume that I'm simply "offended" by "people I don't respect" getting rights to be legally recognized as couples."
For the record, by the way, my girlfriend and I are not legally recognized as a couple. Just how much do you think that upsets me?
Er, well, I'm fairly sure that Club Bleach isn't trying to distract people from the war... I have no idea where THAT all came from. O.o

you do realise I'm from Canada where catholic ordained priests marry gay couples. look it up yourself.

it is stupid of you to keep missing the simplest point made by that question!

DOES IT AFFECT YOUR LIFE!!!!!!! THE ANSWER IS NO!!!!! if you can't grasp that. its me who should ask how frequently you've been dropped on your skull.

I'm quoting your post not twenty pages of posts and your personal status was not brought up and is totally unimportant to the subject being discussed.
you made a blanket statement about the entire christian comunity which was wrong to begin with (yes christian churches do marry gay couples) and it was worded in a way to show your disapproval of gay marriages. that is where the disrespect shows in your own post try rereading it.

like i said if some clergy are willing to marry gay couples in their church who are you to say they can't? the marriage has nothing to do with you and never will it does not infringe on your right to be married and it in no way will alter your personal life if they do get married.

[Sarteck]

As for the number and age of people involved in civil unions, there are many restrictions in place. Polygamy is still forbidden[...]. Laws are already in place to keep such unions from being legal, though they can understandably be overturned with enough backing from the populace and the federal government, though it is highly unlikely.As far as I can see, polygamy is forbidden on the same grounds as is gay marriages. I knwo this is delving entirely into another debate, but bare with me--why should these types of unions not be allowed?

This, I think, is at the core of many politicians' and lawmakers' thought processes--there would have to be an entire re-working of how civil unions would work to seperate Church from State. Mind you, this is not my thoughts, but how I imagine some of them may think--if we allow gay marriages, then we will soon have to allow polygamy. This would be one huge headache to lawmakers, who would have to include such unions in property and tax cases (not to mention benifits, etc.).

Do we need that headache? I say yes, we do--we need a major re-working of the laws to actually truly seperate Church and State. I would think that many politicians think otherwise, though.



@Dragoneyes: "Does it affect your life?" That's just too lame of an arguement to even respond to.

[dragoneyes001]

OK Sartek you keep trying to dismiss the original question by rewording it so it can't be seen as originally posted so to stop this BS I'll write it out completely.

DID THE MARRIAGE OF A WOMAN IN ENGLAND TO A PORPOISE CHANGE YOUR LIFE IN ANY WAY?
so far you have evaded answering this question because you know if you do you'll prove just how little gay marriages will effect your life as well. neither this woman's marriage to a mammal or the two same sex peoples marriage have ANY bearing on your personal life.

you keep trying to say the CHURCH is united in condemning gay marriages this is false. only the orthodox sections are and they do not make up 100% of the church.

you are trying to compare the marriage of two same sex partners to the marriage of multiple partners which do not compare there are completely different laws regarding these. there's no difference in the union of two same sex partners and a man and woman's union when it comes to the legal papers they are supposed to fill out except the description of the individuals.

also what people don't seem to be willing to admit is even if same sex marriage was made totally legal this would NOT force clergy who do not want to participate in these ceremonies to marry anyone they don't want to.
its already perfectly legal for the clergy to not participate for their own reasons to any marriage if they so chose. the only people who would be forced to marry a couple who meets the criteria are the government officials who perform civil unions ( the only people who have to do the marriage are the government because they are separated from church)

as long as the falsehood that legal same sex marriage will force church officials to perform weddings against their will. its easy to argue against allowing them but thats not the case there are no laws even in the constitution that force the church to marry someone against the clergy's will.

[Hisaki]

As far as I can see, polygamy is forbidden on the same grounds as is gay marriages. I knwo this is delving entirely into another debate, but bare with me--why should these types of unions not be allowed?
This, I think, is at the core of many politicians' and lawmakers' thought processes--there would have to be an entire re-working of how civil unions would work to seperate Church from State. Mind you, this is not my thoughts, but how I imagine some of them may think--if we allow gay marriages, then we will soon have to allow polygamy. This would be one huge headache to lawmakers, who would have to include such unions in property and tax cases (not to mention benifits, etc.).
Do we need that headache? I say yes, we do--we need a major re-working of the laws to actually truly seperate Church and State. I would think that many politicians think otherwise, though.
@Dragoneyes: "Does it affect your life?" That's just too lame of an arguement to even respond to.


Enacting unions between homosexuals will do nothing to affect the currently-abolished status of polygamy. Due to the legal confusion that would result from the enaction of polygamous unions, attempting to give them legal status is nigh impossible. As it stands, polygamy is punishable by law, while homosexuality is not. However, if polygamists wish to have their unions validated by law, it would simply take legal efforts and a great deal of time for legislators to determine whether such unions should be legal. The backing for polygamous unions is smaller than that of homosexual unions, so it is unlikely that enough popular support would be garnered for polygamous marriage.

Though, if enough support were presented, and lawmakers decided to allow many people to be married to one other person, it would happen. That's the great thing about a democracy; whatever the people deem to be acceptable can eventually become law. In this case, it's doubtful it will ever be acceptable, and if it is, it will more than likely happen after several generations. Even if it did happen now, however, it would not complicate the lives of typical citizens much at all. It would simply be providing for an alternative lifestyle.

[Toasty]

I support gay marriage because marriage is a union between two people recognized by the government. They try to put it off as being a union between and man and woman, but honestly, that only involves the sex portion. Marriage involves so much more:

living together, sharing bills, sharing insurance, visit each other in the emergency room, pull the plug on the spouse who is a vegetable in the hospital, etc...

People get other, less significant, benefits for being married. My auto insurance went down $25 when I got married. I get to use my husbands discount card at his workplace. etc.

If two people want all these benefits (which can only be attained by being married) then they should be allowed to be married. Two guys or two girls that want to live together and have sex are GOING to do so. The government shouldn't stop them from having the benefits of marriage.

What is all that crap about "partnerships" that some states are trying to push for? Giving it a different name doesn't change the fact that it will never have the same benefits and be viewed as legal.

I just can't see a country of equality taking those rights of happiness away from two people who want to live their lives together as any other couple in love would.

Now, on to love being a choice. Honestly, I could see this. I agree, actually, that love and lust are choices, often subconcious, but they are choices none-the-less. Whether it is a choice or some cosmic destiny that two people will love each other, who cares! People do it all the time. They CHOOSE to love their pet goldfish and when it dies, they cry and flush it down the toilet. They CHOOSE to love money over people, robbing the bank and killing innocents just to get the money to buy an expensive car or whatever they want. People CHOOSE to love the thrill of jumping out of an airplane. People CHOOSE to love their family. People CHOOSE to love their boyfriend or girlfriend.

So why should the choice of a man loving a man or a woman loving a woman be so different.

This nation has already taken God out of everything else. Sins are everywhere. For a country that wants to give a man the right to break into a house, get hurt falling down the stairs, and let him WIN a case to sue the owner of the house... I don't think this is any worse.

Let them live together. Let them all have marriage and the rights that go with it.

[Winter-war]

i also support gay marriage, i feel that consenting adults have the right to get married with whoever they please. i refuse to judge or discriminate against people by thier race, economic standings, or sexual orientation. also it's their buisness what right do we have to tell someone who they should marry and fall in love in with.

[Sarteck]

@Dragoneyes: Like I said, saying "It doesn't affect you so it shouldn't concern you" is just stupid. A very lame arguement, not one worth responding to. Thus, I won't. My brother trying to live on the reservation while raising my twin nephew and niece doesn't affect me, either, yet it concerns me. Ergo, your arguement fails.

Further, nowehre in any of my posts did I even try to mention anything such as "zOMG ALL CHURCHES HATE GAY MARRIAGES WTFBBQ!?" Don't put words in my mouth.

As to polygamus relationships, I was not just talking about the legal papers that should be filled out--I was bringing it up in the first place because the morality of banning polygamus relationships is akin to banning gay relationships. Ergo, why should one be allowed and not the other?



@Hisaki: Would it not? Would accepting gay marriages (or civil unions, whichever term they choose [I do believe that it will happen, it's just a matter of when]) not have any affect on the arguement of polygamus marriages? I think that it would... Using the same arguements I presented above (and others).

Also, homosexuality -is- punishable by law. Heh. Not the United States laws (so far as I know), but many states have antiquated laws, and I know that South Carolina has a few regarding gay relationships. Further, the UCMJ (United Code of Military Justice) to which all of our Armed Services still adhere have laws agaisnt the practice of any kind of sodomy. While it is still an antiquated law, a member of my Division while I was in Nuclear Power School in South Carolina (I was previously in the Navy) was given NJP (non-judicial punishment) for admitting to being given head by a guy in the school parking lot, and was reduced in rank from Petty Officer 3rd Class to Seaman, and given 30-day restriction to the base.

Yes, we still have laws (and active ones) against gay relationships. Heh.



@leixela: Why would giving it a different name take away any kinds of benifits that current marriages recieve?

I don't know about being gay being a choice, though... I "experimented" a few times when I was younger, before I joined the Navy, and I just didn't like it. I don't think I "chose" not to be gay, just like I don't "choose" not to like breaking walls with my head. Heh.







@thread: Just for clarification, since some of you ~cough~DRAGONEYES001~cough~ seem to have it stuck in your heads that I'm some gay basher or even that I'm simply against civil unions, I'm not. Heh. Oh, I freakin' HATE flamers, yeah. But I've nopthing against gay people, or gay people wanting to share the rest of their lives together and be able to have the same benifits as if they were two seperate genders.

As I said, I do -not- think it should be "marriage." Hell, I don't think marriage itself should have laws associated with it. I think both of these things for the same reason--marriage is a religious institution, and should be seperated from the Law.

Hell, think about "spousal privilege," those of you who are Law and Order fans. Heh. Should gay people not be entitled to the same privilege? I think so...

[AznPoi]

Let them do what they want it's their life.

What they shouldn't do is let them raise kids because the kids will most likely turn out gay also O.o

[Nemesis0521]

I have nothing against gay marriages or gays for that matter but I do have a problem is that a big percentageof the gay community in Miami Beach expect you to clap at the fact thay are gay and make parades specificly saying their oriientation and look at you with a dirty look if you just mention the word gay. How can that make sense! Also I'm annoyed that they think they can grab a woman's boob and say it's ok just cause they are gay.

[dragoneyes001]

By "the church," I assume you are talking about the Christian religion. I therefore challange you to provide ONE example of an ORDAINED clergyman of the Catholic church willing to perform same-sex marriages.

Further, nowehre in any of my posts did I even try to mention anything such as "zOMG ALL CHURCHES HATE GAY MARRIAGES WTFBBQ!?" Don't put words in my mouth.

who's putting words in your mouth? sorry but you said the above and thats what was quoted and answered.

saying I can't find one example implies the entire church (catholic) your words not mine!

As to polygamus relationships, I was not just talking about the legal papers that should be filled out--I was bringing it up in the first place because the morality of banning polygamus relationships is akin to banning gay relationships. Ergo, why should one be allowed and not the other?

sorry but moral objection has nothing to do with legality the entire debate against or for same sex marriage is a legal one they want the legal right to marry they dont ask for the moral right to. the administration is trying to make sure they dont have the legal right to marry and are also trying to remove the legality of already existing marriages (this is a legal matter not a moral one.)

@Dragoneyes: Like I said, saying "It doesn't affect you so it shouldn't concern you" is just stupid. A very lame arguement, not one worth responding to. Thus, I won't. My brother trying to live on the reservation while raising my twin nephew and niece doesn't affect me, either, yet it concerns me. Ergo, your arguement fails.

concern has no bearing on if someone else should or should not have rights.
your argument fails because the only reason you can state against same sex marriage is how you or another feel about it not that it has any negative effect on your rights or legal status your objections have no legal standing and the constitution does not state that moral objection overides a persons rights.

As I said, I do -not- think it should be "marriage." Hell, I don't think marriage itself should have laws associated with it. I think both of these things for the same reason--marriage is a religious institution, and should be seperated from the Law.

again you try to make a moral objection to a legal issue since marriage is a legal institution and not just a religious one its not seperated and even if it was it would still be a legal issue to not allow it for same sex couples since it again makes same sex couples less equal (which there are laws against sexual discrimination).

[Sarteck]

By "the church," I assume you are talking about the Christian religion. I therefore challange you to provide ONE example of an ORDAINED clergyman of the Catholic church willing to perform same-sex marriages.
Further, nowehre in any of my posts did I even try to mention anything such as "zOMG ALL CHURCHES HATE GAY MARRIAGES WTFBBQ!?" Don't put words in my mouth.
who's putting words in your mouth? sorry but you said the above and thats what was quoted and answered.

saying I can't find one example implies the entire church (catholic) your words not mine!
I think you'd better read that a little better. Yes, I did ask you to provide an example of an ordained Catholic clergyman (which you've still failed to do) that was willing to perform same-sex marriages. Is the Catholic religion (as a whole, mind you--meaning the leaders of the Catholic Church) against same-sex marriages? Hell yeah. Is the Cotholic Church against gay relationships period? Yuppers. Go ahead, show me where the heads of the Catholic Church said "whoops, we made a mistake, Gays are okay!" Can't do it, can you?

Is the Catholic church the only religion? Hell, is Catholicism the only denomination of Chistianity? zOMG! That might mean [~gasp~] that I wasn't implying that all religions hate gay relationship! OMG! What a concept!



sorry but moral objection has nothing to do with legality the entire debate against or for same sex marriage is a legal one they want the legal right to marry they dont ask for the moral right to. the administration is trying to make sure they dont have the legal right to marry and are also trying to remove the legality of already existing marriages (this is a legal matter not a moral one.)Oh, Wise Dragoneyes, tell us why else such laws (for or agaisnt) would exist except for morality. Please, enlighten me. I was under the impression that laws exist to uphold ethics (hmm, I guess morality doesn't factor into ethics at all, does it? Nope, two completely seperate entities, no ties whatsoever).

Wrong. Why do laws exist? Because of the morals of the lawmakers, and those who uphold those laws. Wait, are you telling me that laws against murder are there because of some other reason than killing is wrong?



concern has no bearing on if someone else should or should not have rights.
your argument fails because the only reason you can state against same sex marriage is how you or another feel about it not that it has any negative effect on your rights or legal status your objections have no legal standing and the constitution does not state that moral objection overides a persons rights.Oh Em Gee. Dragoneyes, pull your head out of your arse and read my posts again. Especially the disclaimer at the bottom of the last one. "Oh, Oh, you argue it just because you don't like it!" Wait, here, I'll quote it right now, so you don't have to go searching: "Just for clarification, since some of you ~cough~DRAGONEYES001~cough~ seem to have it stuck in your heads that I'm some gay basher or even that I'm simply against civil unions, I'm not. Heh. Oh, I freakin' HATE flamers, yeah. But I've nopthing against gay people, or gay people wanting to share the rest of their lives together and be able to have the same benifits as if they were two seperate genders."

Maybe you didn't understand it because I spelled "nothing" as "nopthing?" I don't know... I think anyone else reading that would have understood the typo.



again you try to make a moral objection to a legal issue since marriage is a legal institution and not just a religious one its not seperated and even if it was it would still be a legal issue to not allow it for same sex couples since it again makes same sex couples less equal (which there are laws against sexual discrimination).First of all, marriage is a religious institution. Shut up, go look up the definition in several dictionaries, and then re-read it. What I've been saying (and I had better bold it so you can get it through your thick skull) is that the problem is that it is also a legal institution, when the two should in fact be seperate.

Now, HOW THE HELL DOES NOT ALLOWING SOMEONE TO PARTICIPATE IN A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY BECAUSE THE RELIGION FORBIDS IT A LEGAL MATTER? Should I be able to take part in a peyote tea ceremony with a bunch of Poncas, even though I don't believe in their religion? NO? WHY THE HELL NOT? THAT'S DISCRIMINATION!



Dragoneyes, you fail, plain and simple. You are seeing me as some kind of gay-bashing ass, which I think I've been clear on that I'm not, and you are trying to argue that as fact. You are running around yelling "DISCRIMINATION" at everything. You are trying to declare my arguements as null and void simply because I am not in a gay relationship (e.g., when you say "it doesn't affect you, so it doesn't concern you"). What's next, you're going to blame it all on Bush?

[Draffut]

Marriage according to the goverment, and the church, need to be seperated. Anyone that the church accepts to marry, strait or gay, should be condoned by the goveremnt. anyone who the church refuses to marry needs to get a Cival Union, the goverment's equivalent without the church's approval.

end of story.

[Vampyrelord]

Oh, Wise Dragoneyes, tell us why else such laws (for or agaisnt) would exist except for morality. Please, enlighten me. I was under the impression that laws exist to uphold ethics (hmm, I guess morality doesn't factor into ethics at all, does it? Nope, two completely seperate entities, no ties whatsoever).

Judging from some of the stuff he's said, I always got the impression he thought there should be no laws at all...

[dragoneyes001]

Judging from some of the stuff he's said, I always got the impression he thought there should be no laws at all...

no not no laws just not laws drawn up by someones moral objections to anothers rights. like your constant whining that everything should be banned and made illegal because you object to it.

[Hisaki]

@Hisaki: Would it not? Would accepting gay marriages (or civil unions, whichever term they choose [I do believe that it will happen, it's just a matter of when]) not have any affect on the arguement of polygamus marriages? I think that it would... Using the same arguements I presented above (and others).

Also, homosexuality -is- punishable by law. Heh. Not the United States laws (so far as I know), but many states have antiquated laws, and I know that South Carolina has a few regarding gay relationships. Further, the UCMJ (United Code of Military Justice) to which all of our Armed Services still adhere have laws agaisnt the practice of any kind of sodomy. While it is still an antiquated law, a member of my Division while I was in Nuclear Power School in South Carolina (I was previously in the Navy) was given NJP (non-judicial punishment) for admitting to being given head by a guy in the school parking lot, and was reduced in rank from Petty Officer 3rd Class to Seaman, and given 30-day restriction to the base.

Yes, we still have laws (and active ones) against gay relationships. Heh.


*Shrug* Whether it does push polygamy to the forefront or not is entirely up to the will of the people. As I said, if enough people want it to happen, and can present a good enough argument for it, legislators will have to take it into consideration and eventually act on it. It's hard to be certain whether something like that will happen, or when it will happen, but if it does, and it's passed, it will be done with the will of the people.

As for anti-homosexual laws, they were largely overturned by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. If any other laws that discriminate against homosexual marriages are still in effect, they are more than likely unconstitutional due to the verdict passed by the Supreme Court in that case, and can definitely be appealed and overruled. As far as the military is concerned, there's definite discrimination against homosexuals there, since they're bound by the "don't ask, don't tell" rule, so such laws within the bounds of the military are, sadly, to be expected.

[Vampyrelord]

no not no laws just not laws drawn up by someones moral objections to anothers rights. like your constant whining that everything should be banned and made illegal because you object to it.

Well I'd like to think we were agreed that laws should go hand in hand with moral objections...like the moral objection that robbery is wrong. Doesn't banning robbery infringe the robber's rights?

[rukia723]

i'll suport it but i'm not gonna be one.

[Ceres Legend]

I am quite against homosexuality, but I have my reasons. Even though I am against it, i am not one of those people who would flame them and go like '' ew you gay freak! '' i would just accept it the way it is. Alot of my friends are gay guys and they well know my feelings towards homosexuality and they are cool with it. We keep our distance on this subject and we are great friends.

I am against it, but I am not the kind of person who would go crazy if someone asked me that question '' what is your opinoin on gay marriage? '' i would just say that I am against it, but not to the point where i would try to kill them off and be all racist or whatever you call it...lol.

...Sartec...Dragoneyes stop fighting this isnt going to get you anywhere. everyone has their own views an opnions, even if they are poor;y structured and tottaly groundless they are opnions... opinions are like assholes, everoyne has one and it stinks.

so please stop fighting. Even if its rigt or wrong Allah will be the one to judge, not us.

If someone does though flame me on this, their are MANY I can support my opinion.

[Hisaki]

I am quite against homosexuality, but I have my reasons. Even though I am against it, i am not one of those people who would flame them and go like '' ew you gay freak! '' i would just accept it the way it is. Alot of my friends are gay guys and they well know my feelings towards homosexuality and they are cool with it. We keep our distance on this subject and we are great friends.
I am against it, but I am not the kind of person who would go crazy if someone asked me that question '' what is your opinoin on gay marriage? '' i would just say that I am against it, but not to the point where i would try to kill them off and be all racist or whatever you call it...lol.
...Sartec...Dragoneyes stop fighting this isnt going to get you anywhere. everyone has their own views an opnions, even if they are poor;y structured and tottaly groundless they are opnions... opinions are like assholes, everoyne has one and it stinks.
so please stop fighting. Even if its rigt or wrong Allah will be the one to judge, not us.
If someone does though flame me on this, their are MANY I can support my opinion.


I certainly won't flame you for that. You have a good way of expressing your views: plainly and rationally.

But I will ask you this: Shouldn't marriage be split into its religious and legal parts, so that rights are ensured to all through legal means, while marriage is left to religious institutions to manage? Some churches and religions will marry homosexual couples due to what they believe. Isn't it best to support homosexual marriage as far as voting is concerned, so a choice is available to every religious institution, instead of forcing them all to adhere to a certain group's ideas?

[Ceres Legend]

Yes I do agree with what you are saying. Though, marriage is a holy ceremony, its religious. And since the church is against gay marriage, why should homosexuals go to the church anyway? Yes their are few churches that allow this; but I will repeat again I am really against gay marriage, and again I am saying that it is not my place to judge them, let Allah decide. I have seen that the nicest people I have ever known are all gay men, they have been my best friends even though I am a Muslim and they are well aware of my religious beliefs but we keep our distance on this topic.

Yes, it is better to vote for gay marriage. Marriage in the western world, however, is no longer a religious matter... people marry and divorce as if its nothing... its hardly a religios ceremony in the Western world any longer, though it may be very religious in many areas. I am not saying marriage is completely unholy, I am saying alot of it is unholy... it saddens me to see people getting married for so long, and then divorcing after like 15 years. Its also the case that people get married and divorce the next day. It just saddens me...

I don't see WHY the church is so against gay marriage. The church is corrupt. The things that catholic church has done in the past is horrifc; persecution against pagans, forcing people to convert to catolicism. People say that the cathlic religion has changed then it cannot be for you because it claims to be infallible. I wont get into this topic though... it is a religion and it is not my place to mock someones religion, but i must say this: If the Catholic Religion could kill millions, why can't they allow gay marriage? Every living human is born with a choice, and they have the right to take that choice, whether it is right or wrong.

Well I hope that made sense and answered your question, because I do agree with what you have said okies? ^___^ Allah is the one to judge, not us!

[Hisaki]

Well put. I'm not into religion too much, but I tend to have the same sentiments: If everyone's souls are going to be judged, it's not really our place to say how they should be judged. All of the mucking in religion has twisted and contorted the views that were plainly set out when the religions were founded, and it's also blinded many people to the idea of tolerance.

It would be nice if everyone could be as logical about the matter.

[Ceres Legend]

i finally made some sense ^_^ i am so happy! * hugs hisaki *

[akin_t]

I don't see WHY the church is so against gay marriage. The church is corrupt. The things that catholic church has done in the past is horrifc; persecution against pagans, forcing people to convert to catolicism. People say that the cathlic religion has changed then it cannot be for you because it claims to be infallible. I wont get into this topic though... it is a religion and it is not my place to mock someones religion, but i must say this: If the Catholic Religion could kill millions, why can't they allow gay marriage? Every living human is born with a choice, and they have the right to take that choice, whether it is right or wrong.
Well I hope that made sense and answered your question, because I do agree with what you have said okies? ^___^ Allah is the one to judge, not us!

The fallible sanctity of the Catholic church is no grounds for them to allow gay marriage.

I understand what you're trying to say but nonetheless, the fact that the Catholic church is not perfect does not mean that they should turn a blind eye to what they once believed to be wrong and call it good.

Gay marriage is wrong to the Catholics, the fact that they're not perfect is no excuse for them to tolerate it.

[Hisaki]

The fallible sanctity of the Catholic church is no grounds for them to allow gay marriage.
I understand what you're trying to say but nonetheless, the fact that the Catholic church is not perfect does not mean that they should turn a blind eye to what they once believed to be wrong and call it good.
Gay marriage is wrong to the Catholics, the fact that they're not perfect is no excuse for them to tolerate it.

That may be true, but the Theology of the Body, delivered by Pope John Paul II, was meant to "reconfigure" the Catholic view of sexual behavior as something good and holy, instead of sinful, as was taught since the church's inception.

Sexual conduct was once "wrong" in the eyes of the Catholics, but now it's "good". Maybe they'll change a few more 2,000-year-old rules when they see fit, though it will probably take quite some time.

[zertech]

Originally Posted by Ceres Legend
I don't see WHY the church is so against gay marriage. The church is corrupt. The things that catholic church has done in the past is horrifc; persecution against pagans, forcing people to convert to catolicism. People say that the cathlic religion has changed then it cannot be for you because it claims to be infallible. I wont get into this topic though... it is a religion and it is not my place to mock someones religion, but i must say this: If the Catholic Religion could kill millions, why can't they allow gay marriage? Every living human is born with a choice, and they have the right to take that choice, whether it is right or wrong.
Well I hope that made sense and answered your question, because I do agree with what you have said okies? ^___^ Allah is the one to judge, not us!

thats a pretty idiotic statement coming from a person who i am guessing doesnt know crap about catholasism.

honestly i dont know what your talking about but im guessing it somthing to do with the dark ages. back than the church was more of a government than a church. the bishop became a political leader rather than a religous one.

religioun and politics just dont match its pretty simple. trust me i can tell you from experience.
some preists get pretty corupt. but most dont. its the corupt ones that sometimes giv the church a bad name.
catholisism its self in principle is very good. and if all the humans in the world folowed catholic principles war and hunger and maybe even pvery would be a thing of the past.

one more thing there have been many many times the catholic church has done some great things for the world.

and its also some gayn peoples falt that it gets a bad name when gay people become preists and start molesten alter servers.


the church and its people dont have the right to call gay marage wrong. but they believ that god does and if he does than really it is. its just to unnatural. its not holy like marage is suposed tobe its just plain disgusting.

[Delta]

religioun and politics just dont match its pretty simple. trust me i can tell you from experience.
some preists get pretty corupt. but most dont. its the corupt ones that sometimes giv the church a bad name.
catholisism its self in principle is very good. and if all the humans in the world folowed catholic principles war and hunger and maybe even pvery would be a thing of the past.

one more thing there have been many many times the catholic church has done some great things for the world.

and its also some gayn peoples falt that it gets a bad name when gay people become preists and start molesten alter servers.


the church and its people dont have the right to call gay marage wrong. but they believ that god does and if he does than really it is. its just to unnatural. its not holy like marage is suposed tobe its just plain disgusting.

You could say the same thing about many other religion's principles as you did about Catholic principles, there aren't many religions that promote violence as major cornerstone of their beliefs.

You're right, the Catholic church has done some good things, which is why if anyone asks I identify myself as Catholic even if I dont agree w/ everything they do.

I seriously doubt that anyone became a priest just so they can molest alter boys, anyone that would do that has serious mental issues.

Alright, here's the thing, you dont believe that anyone but God has the right to call gay marriage wrong, but you have just as much proof (I mean proof in a strictly scientific sense) that God thinks gay marriage is wrong as an ancent greek had that Odysseus killed a cyclops. In your first sentence you say that religion and politics dont mix well, well guess what, like it or not, marriage is a part of the law, there are all sorts of laws that make getting married an advantage, and when people are promised "equal protection under the law" gay marriage applies.

[Vampyrelord]

Religion and the state should not mix, period. In America we have a theocracy, ruled by people like Pat Robertson and Bush...isn't it interesting how the Christian family guy always does well?

I'm religious myself, but I accept that Religion comprises of unproved personal principles upon which no stable government can be formed (just look at the Middle East :o)

[gwcommander]

I dissagree with gay marriage on the grounds that its against my religon. I am a Christian but i dont hate gay ppl. I know a few gay ppl and they are cool but I think that marriage should stay a relgious seramony. Some would arguee that it was 1st used as a way to barter or establish realtions between countries. But it has changed to be a symbol of 2 ppl of the same faith joining as one. I think if we just changed the name from marriage to civil union and make them have the same rights would be an equil compramize. married in the eyes of god and civil union by the state.

[ChansteR]

Although I feel uncomfortable around gay people, I don't go against gay marriage. Marriage is something that is between the 2 lovers and no anyone else. Why must people go against it if in reality, doesnt truely affect you at all, period. Also, saying that it should not be allowed is basically restricting the human rights, when in such a land such as the U.S is called the land of freedom basically contridicts itself and that gay marriages should not be legal based on the sole factor of religion is ridiculous. Also, how is it so wrong, why are gay people looked down upon so much? Just because they are homosexual doesnt mean they are bad people. People are born with the choices they make in life, whether they are straight or gay, basically saying that gay marriages are not allowed is like saying a person should stay as a single forever instead of being with one they love forever minus boyfriend/girlfriend relations.

[I)ante]

I dissagree with gay marriage on the grounds that its against my religon.
Soo, you can't even think for yourself, is that it?? You just follow the ways of your religion without knowing why you're following it?
I think that marriage should stay a relgious seramony
These days marriage doesn't have to be a religious seremony. Now you can get married in city hall by a judge.
Although I feel uncomfortable around gay people
Ok, just out of curiousity, why??

[mooks]

I dissagree with gay marriage on the grounds that its against my religon. I am a Christian but i dont hate gay ppl. I know a few gay ppl and they are cool but I think that marriage should stay a relgious seramony. Some would arguee that it was 1st used as a way to barter or establish realtions between countries. But it has changed to be a symbol of 2 ppl of the same faith joining as one. I think if we just changed the name from marriage to civil union and make them have the same rights would be an equil compramize. married in the eyes of god and civil union by the state.


I agree, If one was to look at what a marriage ceremony entails... One would notice the numerous referrals to raising children and recognizing the intimate divinty of two people coming together to bring life to another being. It also refers to the relationship being a never-ending bond for the sake of the life that is created out of a communal bond.

Now i'm not saying that true love only exists for 'regular' couples, that is not true... But the words in the ceremony may seem somewhat meaningless or not in context with a same-sex marriage. It's not because the church is discriminant(well, they are sometimes) but it is because there is no ceremony that correctly fits the union of a same-sex marriage.

[Hisaki]

I agree, If one was to look at what a marriage ceremony entails... One would notice the numerous referrals to raising children and recognizing the intimate divinty of two people coming together to bring life to another being. It also refers to the relationship being a never-ending bond for the sake of the life that is created out of a communal bond.
Now i'm not saying that true love only exists for 'regular' couples, that is not true... But the words in the ceremony may seem somewhat meaningless or not in context with a same-sex marriage. It's not because the church is discriminant(well, they are sometimes) but it is because there is no ceremony that correctly fits the union of a same-sex marriage.

The same ceremony of marriage is held for a couple in which one or both of the people involved is sterile, in which the female is past menopause, or for a couple that doesn't intend to have children at all. If these groups can have the same marriage ceremony as couples that can bear children, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to simply bless a homosexual couple that's being married.

[mooks]

The same ceremony of marriage is held for a couple in which one or both of the people involved is sterile, in which the female is past menopause, or for a couple that doesn't intend to have children at all. If these groups can have the same marriage ceremony as couples that can bear children, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to simply bless a homosexual couple that's being married.


Well, there's a big difference between same-sex marriages and a couple involving either sterile or post-menopause partners. If one is familiar with biblical stories- it is full of stories of old couples giving birth (Isaac), or sterile men obtaining offspring (Parmithius)- these stories suggest that either a miracle or pure divinity had a role in child-bearing. And is supposedly a story of hope for couples who cannot concieve.

I'm just aproaching this subject from a theological point of view... I believe that giving blessings to same-sex couples is of no debate and should be condoned as part of the churches doctrine to not turn anyone away...
But there's a big difference in giving blessings and joining two people in holy matrimony.

[tortuegenial]

I agree, If one was to look at what a marriage ceremony entails... One would notice the numerous referrals to raising children and recognizing the intimate divinty of two people coming together to bring life to another being. It also refers to the relationship being a never-ending bond for the sake of the life that is created out of a communal bond.
Now i'm not saying that true love only exists for 'regular' couples, that is not true... But the words in the ceremony may seem somewhat meaningless or not in context with a same-sex marriage. It's not because the church is discriminant(well, they are sometimes) but it is because there is no ceremony that correctly fits the union of a same-sex marriage.

The thing is marriage these days isn't what it used to be, if it is about raising children then a gay or lesbian couple can adopt a child or two and raise them well......and their relationship can very well be never-ending.
If these are the fundamental qualities that you believe a marriage should entail then there are a lot more cases that are worse than gay marriages that involve young people or foolish people.
Why do gay people get married? most probably for those attributes that you mentioned.....
Then you have an even greater number of couples (man and woman) that marry to lose their virginity or simply because they think they'r ready for the next step, or to steal some money and property.
If you are going to give marriage rights to those people I don't see why you cannot apply the same rights to gay couples.

[mooks]

The thing is marriage these days isn't what it used to be, if it is about raising children then a gay or lesbian couple can adopt a child or two and raise them well......and their relationship can very well be never-ending.
If these are the fundamental qualities that you believe a marriage should entail then there are a lot more cases that are worse than gay marriages that involve young people or foolish people.
Why do gay people get married? most probably for those attributes that you mentioned.....
Then you have an even greater number of couples (man and woman) that marry to lose their virginity or simply because they think they'r ready for the next step, or to steal some money and property.
If you are going to give marriage rights to those people I don't see why you cannot apply the same rights to gay couples.


I don't condone such usage or behaviour about marriage- obviously there is always an abuse of responsibility when dealing with any priviledge or ceremony... But that does not mean that anyone can just get married...

There are cases in San Fransisco and Denmark where same-sex marriage is applicable... where roommates apply for marriage and get beneficial deductories such as joint accounts, mortgages, loan applicability and other priviledges that are only entitled to married couples to help them sustain their living...

This has caused massive problems for the tax-payers in both accounts- and in some cases in Denmark, witnesses are required to sign a police statement incase of false pretense.

Although this quite irrelevant to the religious aspect of this disscussion- i just want to show that mistreatment of responsiblities and priviledges- happens in all sectors.

On another note... religion takes time to change... Christianity still doesn't know where to stand on Abortion- for example...

Our society is changing faster than religion can adapt.
It's like America accepting mosques and muslims in an open society- they're just not ready yet or never will. Although this maybe completely out of context- i think it's an appropriate simile

[phantom_ko]

I think that gay people having the desire of a marriage is not wrong, but it is also not right; but it is that they could not help it having the feeling of attraction to their sex. The Catholic Church has very strict rules on the term Marriage, they have various conventions like monogamy - marriage between a male and a female. They learn that from the bible the purpose of marriage is to be procreative, and gay marriage can not be procreative in any natural way. Therefore you cannot say that they are evil, this is because it is their teaching and if u looked from their view, there is nothing wrong with it. In a way of not allowing gay marriage is cruel, but allowing it dosent make it any better but encourages gay sex which is wrong in their eyes because it is not procreative. Although there is a slight flaw because they are also taught that marriage is for expressing each other's love which means that gay marriage should be allowed. Many people not only outside the church but also inside the church has thought about this idea, but it is automaticly rejected. As our present pope is totaly against gay beliefs, there is not much we can do about for the time being.

[*Hollow*Ichigo]

i just dont reall mind because dats the way ppl live and u cant judge dat..

[Akiha]

Hmm...I guess I could start with this: I dont mind if gays marry. Im not gay or anything like that, and I feel fine around gays, as long as they arent hitting on me or something. The church shouldnt have a hold on a persons free will, unless the person wishes it.Sure it may seem wrong and all, but it is the way a person feels toward someone else. You can't control that.

If a man or woman wants to marry the same sex, so be it.

[Slasher]

Doesn't really matter to me, if they want to marry, sure. And like others have said.. I don't really mind gay people, as long as they aren't hitting on me and stuff..

[Wolfman Walt]

I'm against Marriage the way it works now, period. Marriage shouldn't at all be in the government, instead a union license, which is seperate from a religiousily performed marriage should be allowed. The fight from gays is that they do not get the same benefits from a life partner as someone who is "married" where as anti gay marriage advocates are against the idea of homosexuals being married based on the idea that marriage is also a religious function. So the key is to take out the idea of official marriage from the government, replace it with a partners license that can apply to any couple and then allow the church to handle marriage. There's more to it, but that's just my opinion.

[Moose1015]

I don't care, just another group of people to get divorced.

[MasterWordSmith]

I have one honest sentace.

Marrige is a HUMAN right, not a religeious right.

[Wolfman Walt]

Marrige is a HUMAN right, not a religeious right.

Says who? Where in the constitution are you explicantly garunteed the right to marry?

[Hisaki]

Says who? Where in the constitution are you explicantly garunteed the right to marry?

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal rights to all citizens of the United States, and has been used to argue against the same-sex marriage ban. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, in part because of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court cannot enforce its decisions alone, and must rely on Congress and/or state legislature to pass laws that uphold the rulings of the Court. In this case (and in quite a few others), Congress and state governments just ignored the ruling. In the other cases, laws were passed after several years to a decade. Maybe it'll happen this time... Maybe not.

[Wolfman Walt]

Then by that same logic - polygamy and polygyny should be legalized, as well as incesteous marriage. Besides, I once again say, where is it written that marriage is a right?

[Angel_shikigami]

Just cuz they're gay don't mean they shouldn't get married. I do support it cuz the rule about a marriage being difined as a unoin between a man and a woman is strictly religous. IT'S THE SEPERTATION OF CHURCH AND STATE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!1 and also it isn't civil rights if they can't be wed, cuz they should have the rights that we have.

[Hisaki]

Then by that same logic - polygamy and polygyny should be legalized, as well as incesteous marriage. Besides, I once again say, where is it written that marriage is a right?

*Shrug* As I argued with Sartec a few pages back, you could make an argument for polygamy, and if the populace backed it and legislators decided it was worthwhile, it would go through. The Fourteenth Amendement could be used as a backing for that, as well as the First Amendment, since some religions embrace and encourage polygamy, and forbidding it could be seen as an infringement on their freedom of religion.

It's never explicitly said that marriage is a given right, but the legal backing of marriages is an implicit statement by the government that it's a right. Furthermore, since marriage is the most common way of acquiring the legal rights bestowed upon a couple, churches are usually obligated to marry a couple. Ironically, the ideal course of action is to fully ensure that it's no longer a right; by splitting it into legal and religious halves, churches would no longer be in a position where they are almost required to marry couples for legal reasons, since obtaining a marriage license would be a separate procedure.

[Wolfman Walt]

*Shrug* As I argued with Sartec a few pages back, you could make an argument for polygamy, and if the populace backed it and legislators decided it was worthwhile, it would go through.

But that's the thing, from what I can tell, a majority of the population do NOT support gay rights to marry. The fact that a majority of states have made provisions on their own saying that gays should not be allowed to marry should be proof enough. So is it that it should be decided by the population or by the government?

The Fourteenth Amendement could be used as a backing for that, as well as the First Amendment, since some religions embrace and encourage polygamy, and forbidding it could be seen as an infringement on their freedom of religion.
Remember, that the first amendment does not cover EVERYTHING and only has a certain amount of reach. For instance, mailing pornographic or material otherwise deemed offensive is illegal because they have been deemed not covered by the first ammendment, as decided by the Supreme court. Other instances include the much cited not being able to yell "Fire" in a theater.


It's never explicitly said that marriage is a given right
Then by your own volition the 14th amendment doesn't neccesarily apply to gay marriage. As such, it's not covered by the U.S. Constitution and should be decided by the states, which is how it works currently, with more then a majority not allowing gay marriage.

So why isn't marriage a right? If it was it is something that cannot be denied to you. It is something that belongs to all of us innately and an object that our government was instituted to protect and make sure that we all have. Knowing that, if someone wants to marry but cannot find someone to wed then what? If no one is willing to marry a person who wants to marry then where does that leave us? It's a right, isn't it?

If marriage was TRUELY a right, then I could say "I want to marry" right now, and then go through the legal system to garuntee me a wife. But as we all (hopefully) know, that's just bull cockery.

by splitting it into legal and religious halves, churches would no longer be in a position where they are almost required to marry couples for legal reasons, since obtaining a marriage license would be a separate procedure.

Now this is what I agree with and if you check my original post, what I said should be done.

[p0rkfri3drice]

marriage is a personal thing. other people's marriages almost shouldnt affect you. gay ppl wanna get married? go ahead. just dont get married or mess with me, i dont give a damn. marriage is personal, so i think we should just leave it alone. but sadly in our current society, everything is systematic. there are standards to everything and everyone's opinions towards anything counts. in ways, its good and bad.

[MasterWordSmith]

Says who? Where in the constitution are you explicantly garunteed the right to marry?
Nowhere for either side of the argument. Letting only one type of person is playing favorites. In a nation of freedom, I would imagine all people being allow EQUAL rights.

[Wolfman Walt]

In a nation of freedom, I would imagine all people being allow EQUAL rights.

We do have equal rights - marriage isn't a right.

[Hisaki]

Actually, over half of the American populace supports same-sex civil unions; most states have banned "marriage" of same-sex couples, using marriage as a blanket term for both religious and legal aspects. Roughly 40% of Americans support allowing same-sex couples to have completely equal marriage. Most of the states have banned same-sex marriage by playing off of the word "marriage" itself; since a lower amount of the populace supports full marriage, it's somewhat advantageous to those that want to maintain norms to play off of the public's distaste for the idea of a homosexual couple being wed. As for the decision of marriage... It should be decided by the government, I believe. The Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments were simply ratified by Congress, and the populace had no real say in the matter; doubtlessly, if the Amendments had been passed to the states, they would have taken much longer to be ratified, and some states might not have ratified them at all. Besides, Bush tried to push an amendment through Congress to federally ban same-sex marriage in all states; surely they could do the same to enact it.

The First Amendment may not cover everything, but it could be argued that restricting polygamy is a burden on the usual religious proceedings of certain faiths. If nothing else, it could be used to push for multiple cohabitation contracts, rather than